TeflonDub in the New Worldhttps://teflondub.com
An Irishman in the U.S. trying to make sense of this beautiful messTue, 30 Jan 2018 20:47:34 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://s2.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.pngTeflonDub in the New Worldhttps://teflondub.com
Attention Men: Let’s Sit This One Outhttps://teflondub.com/2018/01/27/attention-men-sit-this-one-out/
https://teflondub.com/2018/01/27/attention-men-sit-this-one-out/#respondSat, 27 Jan 2018 04:33:55 +0000http://teflondub.com/2018/01/27/attention-men-sit-this-one-out/More Attention Men: Let’s Sit This One Out]]>As Ireland prepares for a referendum to repeal the 8th amendment, the constitutional ban on abortion, men seem to have a lot to say on the subject. I know: shocker, right? There is no doubt that abortion is a hugely emotive subject, but it takes a special kind of arrogance and sense of entitlement – that only a patriarchal society affords – for men to feel that they have a voice worth hearing, in any debate on the issue. While a man is talking, there is a woman not being heard.

You could make an argument that even the most conservative man should vote to repeal. Why? Because it should be the last direct involvement Irish men have on the female reproductive rights’ debate. It would basically clear the deck of any barriers to new legislation, allowing women to discuss among themselves the legislative protections they want in place for women, foetuses and doctors.

In a time of #MeToo and #TimesUp, a time where there is a historic opportunity to address systemic gender-power imbalances that are so deeply rooted in society, is it not time for men to formally lay down their arms on the abortion debate, allowing women’s voices to be heard? What perspective can any man possibly have to offer on the subject that women have not already considered? What level of arrogance is needed, whatever you might feel about the moral and ethical issues of induced terminations, to think that your male brain can parse nuance and complexity in a way that the other half of the population cannot – the half directly affected by this issue?

I would also challenge the major media, from RTÉ to all the major radio stations, newspapers and websites, to give only female representatives, politicians or experts the use of their platforms to comment on this subject. We have female advocates, members of religious orders, TD’s, philosophers and medical professionals. Let’s hear from women alone, without interruption.

Just as I would find it odd to hear women feel the need to contribute to a discussion on the rules and considerations that should be given to vasectomies, I find it equally incongruous to hear men feel the need to interject on the subject of female reproductive rights, or the rights of a foetus. Men would have no problem shouting down a woman offering her opinion about vasectomies. But that’s the problem. We have no problem shouting down a woman offering her opinion about anything. And that comes down to a basic lack of respect for women’s abilities – about everything. On this subject, of all subjects, that surely has to change.

Come on fellas, let’s agree, we can sit this one out. We should. We must. The ladies have it covered. Leave them to it.

]]>https://teflondub.com/2018/01/27/attention-men-sit-this-one-out/feed/0teflondub“Let’s Talk” – How to Keep a Healthy Mindhttps://teflondub.com/2017/10/25/lets-talk-how-to-keep-a-healthy-mind/
https://teflondub.com/2017/10/25/lets-talk-how-to-keep-a-healthy-mind/#respondWed, 25 Oct 2017 23:53:31 +0000http://teflondub.com/2017/10/25/lets-talk-how-to-keep-a-healthy-mind/More “Let’s Talk” – How to Keep a Healthy Mind]]>Here’s a pro tip: some of the best people to talk to about your troubles are ones who don’t know you or anybody around you at all. When I stopped drinking five years ago, I started to go to a weekly meeting called SMART (Self-Management And Recovery Training). Every Saturday morning, 8:30am for an hour and a half. It’s a bit like AA, but without any of the steps, higher powers, sponsors or chanting. Ok, it’s nothing like AA! But it’s a bunch of people who usually started doing something to excess because they found it soothing at first, but then it became a problem that was causing them difficulty in their lives. Mostly booze, some drugs (heroin, meth, cocaine, marijuana, pills), more and more now trying to reduce the amount of sugar they eat. We even had one great guy who never drank or smoked, but his procrastination had reached debilitating levels. Bulimics, gamblers, social media addicts, people who self-harm, everything. You quickly realize that the substance or behavior is fairly irrelevant, it is the same set of battles that everybody is fighting, and that the maladaptive ‘behavior of choice’ just serves as a distraction.

It’s very intimidating walking into a room full of strangers for the first time at what is usually for most people one of the worst times of their lives. But the welcome you get from people who don’t judge you is terrific, as they have been exactly where you are, and nothing you say as you tell your story surprises them in the least. There’s really only one rule at these meetings: whatever is said in the room, stays in the room. And because nobody knows you or anybody in your life, at home or at work, you’re free to talk about anything without having to worry that you’re putting the people listening in a bind or that it might make its way back to the person you’re talking about. And while you might start talking about other people in your life to begin with, the group usually has enough life experience to get you talking about the person who is really bothering you the most – the voice inside your head.

It’s exhilarating when you realize that everybody else has the same constant chatter going on in their heads, that stupid voice that gives you all sorts of bad advice and makes things out to be way worse than they really are, coming up with the most unhelpful theories for why somebody said or did something and what their ulterior motives might be. The good news is that you learn that this voice is not you, and that you don’t have to listen to it. Which us just as well, because like I said, the advice you get from it is absolutely terrible!

Eventually, that group of strangers becomes an important set of allies you go back to where you can safely sort out all the stuff that’s been rattling around in your head. It’s about a 20-minute drive each way for me, and many’s a time I’ve thought on the way there, “everything is grand at the moment, there’s not really much point in going this week”. But listening to others and having time to take stock of what I have been juggling, I invariably end up having something to say that’s been bothering me, and without fail, I leave that room feeling better than I did going into it. We know we have to exercise regularly or our body falls apart. The mind is no different. That couple of hours each Saturday morning is the mental workout I have found keeps me in touch with little changes, and if I don’t recognize them early enough, they can easily snowball and overwhelm me. And that can lead to trouble. So I keep showing up each week so I can nip them in the bud.

Sometimes there are only four or five of us, there’s usually about a dozen, and sometimes there’s as many as 20. Lawyers, doctors, economists, labourers, musicians, TV producers, electricians, journalists, students, stay-at-home Moms, stay-at-home Dads, the unemployed, surgeons, retirees – men and women, young and old. I’ve been sharing the facilitation duties now for the last three years with a guy who has been going every week for ten years. We call it the social highlight of our week. We chip in $2 each to cover the $30 the church charges for the room. If you have $2. It’s not mandatory. Nobody is counting.

I wish somebody had told me about places like this when I was younger. I wish somebody had told me that rehab isn’t some $20k a week Malibu getaway where Hollywood elites go to dry out. Rehab is about as glitzy as a physiotherapist’s office, a place you drop into on your way home after work for a couple of hours for a few weeks to give yourself a chance to make some changes. And your health insurance covers it.

So, long story short: everybody is fighting a battle. You’re not alone. There are lots of people who would love the chance to help. Just like you will be happy to help others for the rest of your life when you see them for the first time on the worst day of their life. There’s nothing you’re going through that is too embarrassing or shameful to tell others. They’ve probably already heard it before. You’re not a bad person. Every problem can be solved. It gets better. It really does. And that voice inside your head is an asshole!

Ger, if you start off with the mindset that any reduction in contact in Rugby Union will help prevent a fatal injury somewhere, then I can see how you would object to anything that challenges that axiom. And it would probably make sense to agree on first principles before arguing past each other as you and Ross may have completely different views of how rugby should change to reduce injury, and how much it can change if it is to remain rugby.

I think it is fair to say that Ross’ assumption is that high impact tackling will remain a part of the adult game of rugby, despite the known risks of adult-sized bodies colliding at adult-sized speeds. That’s probably a fair assumption, and why the sporting landscape ranges from non-contact to fighting. I saw the article as a warning that ‘the path to hell as paved with good intentions’. This is in the context of doing something at youth level that could result in more serious injuries at adult level once the proverbial gloves come off.

It appears that your starting point is that rugby may need to change radically in order to prevent the greatest number of injuries to the greatest number of players, young and old. And that informs your position that any resistance to removing tackles at youth level must be an attempt by rugby’s administrators to emulate ‘Big Tobacco’ by buying research to support morally questionable positions. It would be fair for Ross to take umbrage at an accusation that any acceptance of funding to do research inherently requires the researchers to comprise their principles. I have good faith that good scientists will be drawn to the conclusions the evidence presents. And where there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion, to suggest further research that may help provide that evidence. This article met that standard in my estimation.

What might non-contact rugby look like as a game for youths and adults alike? Is there already a no-contact variant of rugby akin to ‘flag football’ in the U.S.? If you’re not familiar with it, flag football is a popular way to enjoy some of the skills of American Football without having to suit up or expose oneself to the risk of contact injuries. But American Football’s stop/start single-phase nature lends itself particularly well to this method of concluding a ‘down’ before both teams reset for the next down. How would this concept work in a continuous, multi-phase game like rugby without changing it beyond recognition? And wouldn’t such a radical change make rugby lose its appeal for those who enjoy the mixture of strength, speed, toughness and skill that draws them to rugby over other sports in the first place?

The article is relatively benign and hardly strident. It merely provides a reminder that the first obligation of rugby administrators before implementing change is to ensure that they do no harm. It seems a reasonable contention if you accept that adult rugby as we know it will continue to expect its practitioners to engage in robust tackling. The strength of your reaction to the article seems disproportionate to the strength of the argument made by the article, which is basically to leave the status quo in place until an evidence base is available to support any proposed changes. I certainly don’t see anything in the six pages I read to suspect that the motive of the writers is to serve a hidden agenda, as your accusations suggest. I would not feel comfortable standing over that accusation. I doubt you will either.

]]>https://teflondub.com/2017/09/29/216/feed/0teflondubNYT – Today in 1933 – March 1sthttps://teflondub.com/2017/03/02/nyt-today-in-1933-march-1st/
https://teflondub.com/2017/03/02/nyt-today-in-1933-march-1st/#respondThu, 02 Mar 2017 03:00:39 +0000http://teflondub.com/?p=201More NYT – Today in 1933 – March 1st]]>I didn’t know I had access to the entire back catalog of The New York Times through my library card. How cool is that!

New unhealthy obsession: reading the front page of the newspaper on this day in 1933. Hitler was made Chancellor on January 30th. So, what was he up to the day after the Reichstag fire, as published on March 1st?

Gave the Federal government the right to seize executive power in states that failed to take necessary measures to restore law and order. (Sanctuary cities, Chicago?

Some newspapers were suppressed (sorry, NYT

130 communists and pacifists were arrested (hide your pink hats)

Police and ‘auxiliary police’ swarming everywhere (ICE?)

Nationalist students insisting that on the removal of all newspapers with the faintest tinge of liberalism from the University of Berlin (Milo at Berkeley?

Interesting stuff, history.

]]>https://teflondub.com/2017/03/02/nyt-today-in-1933-march-1st/feed/0screen-shot-2017-03-01-at-9-28-02-pmteflondubBetsy, Bikes and Bruyneelhttps://teflondub.com/2017/01/28/betsy-bikes-and-bruyneel/
https://teflondub.com/2017/01/28/betsy-bikes-and-bruyneel/#respondSat, 28 Jan 2017 03:20:25 +0000http://teflondub.com/?p=197More Betsy, Bikes and Bruyneel]]>Extracts of a thread on Betsy Andreu’s Facebook page pushing the upcoming CBS ’60 Minutes’ episode about mechanical doping. Other posts added for context to see to what BA and JB chose to respond. Other posters listed as XX except where names given by BA/JB in their replies.

Betsy Andreu: Watch 60 Minutes this Sunday evening on CBS. For the record, Frankie never used a motor, never knew of anyone who used a motor in the peloton (remember Frankie wasn’t considered a “team player” so wasn’t privy to much). The question I have for you is this (and remember, your speech is protected as long as you state it’s your opinion or belief): Who do you think pioneered the first motor used in the peloton? Look at the bike in the back. Nice replica.

Xx: Not sure that Armstrong did it as his former mechanic Mike Anderson would have known about it. He is another person burned by Lance so he has no reason to keep it a secret.

BA: Anderson was never his mechanic for the Tour

Xx:Wow, I also remember Tyler stating that even with doping Armstrong had something extra, but now I believe he did it.

BA:, in regards to what Tyler said, we were trying to figure out what it was. One thing that came to mind was turtle’s extract. just couldn’t figure it out. Now it makes sense. No idea back then since the idea didn’t even exist at least to us.

BA: who says he doesn’t lie? He himself said he has no credibility. Believe him.

Johan Bruyneel: Betsy Kramar Andreu – Who were his mechanics during all of his Tours then, Mrs. Andreu? I thought I might ask you since it seems that you have first hand knowledge of basically everything that happened during, in and around the Tours de France. #JustCurious

David Malady: Time for an exclusive Johan, did you have knowledge of a motor on any bikes used by Lance.

JB: David Malady – absolutely negative

Xx: interesting he says he sold the motor to someone for $2M in 1998 and the next year armstrong wins the tour.

Xx: Come on Betsy Kramar Andreu – we all know Lance became faster because he lost weight due to cancer and upped his pedal cadence (for the record: this is sarcasm)

BA: The fat is clouding my judgment. You are right!!!

XX: Mr. Varjas said that the engine powered bike started during the LA era, but still in my opinion it would have been too much to deal with ( taking care not to get caught with e-bikes while blooddoping and playing hide&seek with the vampires). Both would’ve been the summum of perversion and cheating. I just hope it wasn’t so without really excluding the possibility knowing what LA is capable of…winning at all cost

BA: how evil genius would it have been to have something no one else even knew about it?

xx: Frankie used EPO and other PEDs, what makes a motor any different? He also denied taking drugs at 1st.

BA: John Wakefield, are you trying to muddy the waters? Nice try if you are but Frankie never denied. The first time he was asked ever by a journalist was by David Walsh in 2003 and he told him the truth. The first time it became public was the 2nd time he was ever asked by a journalist and that was Juliet Macur (NYT) in 2006. If you can’t see a difference between drugs and a motor, I can’t help you.

Xx: Blooddoping or not is not the point here. With e-bikes cheaters take it a huge step further…

John: Betsy Kramar Andreu no not at all but cheating is cheating – makes no difference how. Cutting a course or doping it’s cheating. If you can’t see that, something you strongly supposedly stand by the I can’t help you.

BA: Of course cheating is cheating John. Motors take out the human element completely. While drugs affect people differently, motors don’t.

John Wakefield: Betsy Kramar Andreu you Can give me a bike with a motor and I’m still not going to win a Tour or PT classic – also give me all the drugs Lance, Frankie and Landis took and I also won’t win. Cheating is cheating no one is better or less than the other. A cheat is a cheat. Doesn’t make them a bad personal entirely but they a cheat. Frankie cheated, yet he is a good guy. Same thing

BA: Frankie used epo, guilty. Lance used a slew of drugs ranging from steroids to testosterone to blood transfusions. Both bad. Sorry as hard as you try to equate Frankie with lance, ain’t gonna happen. Good on you for trying John Wakefield, you are persistent.

Jeffrey: I used to get monthly EPO shots when I was in kidney failure. They referred to it as the “ Lance Armstrong” shot at the dialysis clinic. They never called it the “Frankie Andreu” shot.

BA: ^ You have a great sense of humor Jeffrey!

JB: Regarding your remark about Mike Anderson…
Betsy Kramar Andreu,
Who were his mechanics during all of his Tours then, Mrs. Andreu?

I thought I might ask you since it seems that you have first hand knowledge of basically everything that happened during, in and around the Tours de France. #JustCurious

Connie McDonald: Johan Bruyneel.. would be interested to know when you first met Varjas …..also when was the last time you called him?

JB: Connie McDonald – I have never met the guy. Didn’t know of his existence till a few months ago. I did speak to him on the phone a couple of weeks ago. Hope that answers your questions. If not, feel free to ask that man himself.

BA: Another interesting thing is that if someone doesn’t have something to hide or fear coming to the USA for fear of being arrested, they’d come here, right?

JB: Is that your answer to my question, Mrs. Andreu?

BA: Someone want to take a screenshot of this before it gets deleted?

JB: Here’s your screenshot. You can keep it in your “Lance folder” <>

Xx: That Trek in the background looks exactly like the Trek 5200/5500 Team Edition used by USPS in 1999 (frame, Dura Ace 7700 levers, bar tape…)

BA: man, you’re observant!

JB: Betsy Kramar Andreu – so I repeat my question, Mrs Andreu. It’s true that Mike Anderson wasn’t a mechanic at any of the Tours de France. So who were the mechanics and any other people who worked on Mr Armstrong’s bicycles?

BA: Are you desperate for attention or what?

JB: Betsy Kramar Andreu – Mrs. Andreu, absolutely not.

If you read my posts to you, you will (hopefully) notice that I’m writing in a respectful way, and my question to you about who have been the people who have worked on Lance’s bike is in my opinion a logical and reasonable question.

That’s all.

I’m still waiting for your answer to that question, which is directly related to the topic of your initial post, and my only intention is to add some common sense to this debate.

BA: Johan, repeat the question because I didn’t read it the first time. If you come to the U.S. we can talk. You’re not avoiding the U.S. are you?

JB: Betsy Kramar Andreu Betsy, if you would like to read my question, one option would be to scroll upwards in this thread until you see it.

I want to spare you this effort so you can read it here, all it took for me was to go find it, copy it and paste it here:
“Betsy Kramar Andreu – Who were his mechanics during all of his Tours then, Mrs. Andreu? I thought I might ask you since it seems that you have first hand knowledge of basically everything that happened during, in and around the Tours de France. #JustCurious”
I think it’s a valid and reasonable question, directly related to this debate which you have started.
As to the second part of your answer to me: Your question is totally unrelated to this debate, thus totally irrelevant.

But I can tell you that I can come to your country whenever I wish. Now whether I want to travel to your country or not will be completely up to my wish.
But once again, I repeat, this is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
The reason why I commented was and is very clear: Mike Anderson was never a mechanic at TDF, as you state. Who were the people who have worked on Lance’s bikes during all those years, and I will add a sub question now that we are at it: have you, your good friends Greg and Kathy Lemond or anyone of the CBS crew contacted them and questioned them regarding the allusion you’re seeming to make that Mr Armstrong has used a motor inside his bike?
My question is simple, so I would like to think that the answer can be simple too.
Please feel free to shine a light with any insight knowledge you seem to have about this topic which I may not be aware of.

BA: Answer: without obfuscating and deflecting the answer it would depend on whom you would define as a mechanic, Johan Bruyneel. For example, if someone merely put tape on the handlebars, would that constitute a mechanic? So I don’t presume to know everyone who worked on his bike during the tour. That said, I’m sure you can understand a little hesitance in answering your question. Given that some of your colleagues involved in the biggest doping conspiracy along with the cover-up with which you too are involved wanted me to sign an affidavit smearing David Walsh and supporting Lance, I’m sure you understand my hesitance in answering your question, no?

BA: Have you personally called anyone to threaten them Johan?

JB: With all the best will in the world Betsy, I can’t understand “your little hesitance in answering my simple question”.

Is it because you don’t have the answer or is it because it’s not sensationally negative enough?

BA: Johan, I answered albeit hesitantly. You do realize that although people don’t trust lance, they don’t trust you even more, right? So even though I consider you very untrustworthy, I answered your question. You are welcome! Do you not like my answer? While I have you here, why are you hung-up with Mike Anderson?

BA: And, Johan, I’m wondering why you care what my answers are when you know all the corruption that went on, in my opinion.

JB: Betsy Kramar Andreu –
Betsy, you obviously are not used to deal with thoughts which don’t correspond with your convictions and even less so to respond to questions which don’t suit your purpose. But I already knew that.
I can tell you that we did call ALL people who have worked on his bikes. Curiously enough for you probably, I have a very good relationship with every single one of them, which may seem strange for someone like you who doesn’t have any other ability than to demonized Lance and I (just to name us 2).

I guess it’s needless to explain what their response was, since that would be of any interest for your objective.
Re: Mike Anderson. Not hung-up with him at all. I just mentioned him as a consequence of your answer. No specific reason.
Bye now, and may you and you fans have a good one.

Chris Tunnock: Johan Bruyneel JB who first used a motor, in your esteemed opinion. If Cancellara was not first, who actually had used it before him. Personally, I think Varjas or whatever his name is, is full of shit. But I would like to know, it cant just be Froome and Cancellara.

Chris Tunnock: Johan Bruyneel JB I think Lance demonized a few people on the way. hypocrisy aint the most redeeming of human characteristics. And most stood beside and cheered him on. So, if Betsy gets hers back, alls fair in love and war innit?

JB: Chris Tunnock – Chris, I have no idea who used it first. It’s quite clear though that it has been used by some, and the first time I have heard about it was in April of 2010 after the Tour of Flanders and Paris-Roubaix.

I can also tell you that I have only seen it in video clips and never in real live.

JB: Chris Tunnock – fair enough.

Connie McDonald: that someone paid Varjas for sole use of this technology for 10 years fits the MO of Lance using Ferrari with a “no-compete” clause

JB: Connie McDonald – well of course you are entitled to your opinion. Everyone is.

BA: Thanks for being civil Johan Bruyneel. Come back anytime you want to answer questions.

Xx: Was that bike in the background there on purpose or just casuality or maybe to start a sh…storm?

Do you know the way we close the door behind us when we go into the doctor’s office?

Because what we say to our doctor is private, and nobody in the waiting room has any business knowing what our problem is, right?

And you know the way our doctor explains the different treatment options available to us?

And you know the way our doctor has to study ethics and only suggests treatments that she thinks are appropriate for our condition?

And you know the way the people in the waiting room don’t get to tell me what treatment I am allowed to choose, and which ones they believe my ethically-trained doctor should not be allowed to offer me?

And you know the way I alone decide which treatment to take under the supervision of my medically and ethically-trained doctor?

Well, the Vice President, Mike Pence, doesn’t believe in any of that and is making rules so that men like him can take away choices from women like me. And he is so determined to take away my choices, he is also willing to take away the only services that many poor women have available to help them check if they have cancer or other diseases.

So, Mr. Trump’s “thing with Planned Parenthood” is that the president is willing to let poor women die so that Mike Pence’s beliefs get to sit next to every woman in every doctor’s office in America and decide which treatment she is and is not allowed to take.”

]]>https://teflondub.com/2017/01/25/trump-planned-parenthood/feed/0img_9185teflondubPlaying through pain? Don’t. You’re a bad teammate. https://teflondub.com/2016/12/10/playing-through-pain-dont-youre-a-bad-teammate/
https://teflondub.com/2016/12/10/playing-through-pain-dont-youre-a-bad-teammate/#respondSat, 10 Dec 2016 17:18:57 +0000http://teflondub.com/2016/12/10/playing-through-pain-dont-youre-a-bad-teammate/More Playing through pain? Don’t. You’re a bad teammate. ]]>A friend posted a story about her 8-year old child’s first day back at soccer practice after recovering from a concussion. A boy asked her where she had been, and she explained that she couldn’t play because she was hurt. The boy showed her a scrape he had on his arm and told her , “You need to toughen up. You don’t see me being a big baby over this. Pain doesn’t matter.” His Dad rewarded and reinforced his son’s attitude, saying “That’s right, pal. Push though no matter how bad.” Needless to say, my friend was very upset.

Leaving aside the complete lack of empathy or interest in the child’s situation from American Dad for a moment, it reminded me that this glorification of athletes who play while injured is a curiously American phenomenon, and poorly thought out on a number of levels. I have no doubt its origin is in the military. In desperate times when under attack, you probably would value the guy in the foxhole next to you continuing to fight even after being wounded. Extreme case granted. But glorification of the military is part and parcel of American culture and is deeply entwined in the image of professional sports here and the gladiators remind American dads of their own physical inadequacy.
For this to have become a social norm where parents praise and reward such behavior in children is just wrong. It has always struck me as weird when I hear baseball, football and hockey players playing through injuries and being lionized by commentators. What message does that send? It tells their teammates on the bench that they’re not good enough. That an underperforming injured star is better than what a fully healthy replacement can offer. How is that good for team morale? How does that get squared away with coaches preaching that you win as a team and lose as a team, that the whole is better than the sum of the parts? It doesn’t.
I played Gaelic football (in simple terms, a cross between soccer and rugby) at a decent level when I was younger. If I tried to hide an injury to keep my starting place on the team, the coach would be really angry. If he had to use one of the limited number of substitutes the rules allowed early on in a game because I wasn’t competitive, he would be pissed that I was so selfish that I had jeopardized the whole team’s interests. Making a change early on can have a disruptive and even crippling effect on a team. We always had the attitude that a 100% fit replacement was better for the team than a hobbled starter. When being a split second slower is the difference between your team gaining possession or losing it, there’s no 90% fit. There’s 100% or 0%.

Anyway, just thought I’d put that out there. Not every one thinks you’re being a hero when you take a teammate’s spot even though you’re not capable of giving your best.

]]>https://teflondub.com/2016/12/10/playing-through-pain-dont-youre-a-bad-teammate/feed/0teflondubFidel was more than his U.S. caricaturehttps://teflondub.com/2016/11/26/fidel-was-more-than-his-u-s-caricature/
https://teflondub.com/2016/11/26/fidel-was-more-than-his-u-s-caricature/#commentsSat, 26 Nov 2016 19:53:00 +0000http://teflondub.com/2016/11/26/fidel-was-more-than-his-u-s-caricature/More Fidel was more than his U.S. caricature]]>Ok, I was going to write a long post about Fidel’s passing and try to counter scenes from Little Havana in Miami celebrating a death, but I am tired, worn out. Was Castro perfect? Of course not. He and Ché were way off with their homosexual re-education camps, and treatment of counter-revolutionaries did not have ‘due process’ written all over them. Mind you, invasions by the U.S. and repeated CIA assassination attempts might convince you that politics in Cuba need to be played by rules that are more bare-knuckles than genteel rhetoric.
Fidel has been so demonized in the US that I am sure the reaction of most here will be much like the president-elect’s: “Fidel Castro is dead!” The Guardian obituary is long and considered, but gives a more rounded picture of the man. But a few things that Americans should remember before dismissing Fidel as a universally bad man is that Cuba has better rates than the U.S. when it comes to infant mortality, life expectancy and literacy. While Fidel realized the error of his ways around LGBT issues, apologized, and his niece, Mariela, now leads a national effort to counter homophobia, we have leaders in the U.S. going in the opposite direction supporting gay conversion therapy. That was misguided ignorance in post-revolutionary Cuba in the 1960s. It’s willful hatred in 21st century America.
There is a reason why Fidel is embraced as a hero in Africa and Harlem and by the descendants of slaves in Cuba. For all his failings, he tried to right some of society’s most egregious wrongs. For his defiant resistance of western capitalism, imperialism and racism, his passing deserves to be mourned, not celebrated.

]]>https://teflondub.com/2016/11/26/fidel-was-more-than-his-u-s-caricature/feed/1teflondubWhere did HRC’s votes go in Milwaukee County?https://teflondub.com/2016/11/26/where-did-hrcs-votes-go-in-milwaukee-county/
https://teflondub.com/2016/11/26/where-did-hrcs-votes-go-in-milwaukee-county/#respondSat, 26 Nov 2016 02:56:49 +0000http://teflondub.com/2016/11/26/where-did-hrcs-votes-go-in-milwaukee-county/More Where did HRC’s votes go in Milwaukee County?]]>I would put my money on hearing a lot about Milwaukee County in the coming week. This is one of two big areas where HRC needed to win big along with Dane County (Madison, WI) to offset the Trump gains in the rural counties (just when you Netflix fans thought you were done Mannitowoc and Calumet Counties!).

At first glance, Milwaukee County seems out of step with patterns seen elsewhere in the state compared to 2012. Overall, the 2012 vote of 3.068Mln was down about 3% in 2016 to 2.975M.

Let’s look at Dane County first, and see how HRC compared to Obama and how Trump compared to Romney.
Obama: 215k. Romney: 83k. Johnson: 2k. Stein: 1k.

Clinton: 217k. Trump: 71k. Johnson: 10k. Stein: 4k.

Overall, the ‘Big Blue’ county bucked the statewide trend, and rather than showing a 3% decline, it showed a fractional increase. Hillary held onto the Obama vote despite Stein getting stronger. Trump didn’t hold onto big-city Romney voters, losing a chunk to Johnson.

Ok, now let’s go to Milwaukee County, the other place where Clinton needed a big haul to clinch the state. It’s almost twice as big as Dane County, so if Clinton did as well in Milwaukee, as she did in Dane/Madison, she would be in good shape.

Did we also see a fractionally bigger turnout with Clinton holding solidly onto the Obama vote, maybe even getting a few thousand more? Would we see urban Wisconsin Republicans bail a bit on Trump towards Johnson? Check it out:

Obama: 332k. Romney: 154k. Johnson: 2.6k. Stein: 1k.

Clinton: 289k. Trump: 126k. Johnson: 13.6k. Stein: 4.5k.

Instead of Clinton growing Obama’s vote by about 1%, she got 13% LESS! Trump was 14.1% off Romney in Dane/Madison, and 18.2% off Romney in Milwaukee. Some stayed home, some bailed to Johnson.

Now, either the people of Milwaukee County REALLY hated Hillary and stayed home, or something really odd went down in Milwaukee. If we saw a huge pick up by Stein, I might buy it, but Stein improved comparably in Milwaukee as she did in Dane, maybe a little better.

The total statewide vote was off 3% (93k), but Milwaukee County was off 10.6%!! That’s over 52,000 less votes between 2012 and 2016 (492k vs. 440k) in Milwaukee County. A place with 15% of the electorate accounted for 42% of the statewide drop in the vote.

I imagine these were some of the things that got the experts thinking something was up.

]]>https://teflondub.com/2016/11/26/where-did-hrcs-votes-go-in-milwaukee-county/feed/0teflondubClinton’s Campaign Failurehttps://teflondub.com/2016/11/11/clintons-campaign-failure/
https://teflondub.com/2016/11/11/clintons-campaign-failure/#respondFri, 11 Nov 2016 18:31:26 +0000http://teflondub.com/2016/11/10/clintons-campaign-failure/More Clinton’s Campaign Failure]]>The one thing you have to acknowledge is that Clinton ran a bad campaign. And that statement is based on the only objective measure that counts – maximizing the number of people who came out to vote for her. Why is it important to acknowledge this? Because unless campaigns start looking at things differently, or at least less arrogantly, then the only victories that lie ahead are moral ones. Those kind of victories, along with $3, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Sure, Hillary marginally won the popular vote, but that wasn’t the game and her campaign knew that. Stuffing the popular vote column with blowout wins on the west coast is immaterial, and the kind of moral victory that only the fans of losing teams seek. In sports parlance, you are what your record is. It doesn’t matter if the ref sucks, the other team cheats and that you run a fundamentally sound, disciplined offense. If your record is 2-6, you’re a 2-6 team.
Clinton’s campaign team’s strategy was to stand back and let Trump self-immolate. If you had to describe Clinton’s message that was intended to resonate to mobilize the electorate, how would you do that? If you had to name the couple of things that would convince those unsure if dragging their way to the voting booth was really worth their time and effort (and please, no tsk-tsk’s about obligations or civic duty), what would they be? Anybody got anything better than “I’m not Trump”, “I’m a safe pair of hands”, “I’m the less risky choice”? What was her signature policy initiative that you can be sure 85% of people if stopped in the street could tell you? What was her “I’m going to build a wall”? I am damned if I could tell you.
Was it free college education for all? No, that was dismissed as too expensive to pay for and not a promise that could be kept. But you can’t deny that it’s easy to remember, right? And this is politics, not an affidavit submission to a court of law.
Was it free child care for all? No, that would be very difficult to implement without wasting lots of money subsidizing child care for wealthy people who don’t need it. But it’s catchy, isn’t it?

Was it universal, single-payer free healthcare for all? No, they tried to get that through Congress in the 1990s, but it went nowhere and ended up with nothing. But it’s an awful lot easier to understand than exchanges, deductibles and subsidies, isn’t it?

Was it a basic income for all? Enough money to cover rent, food, utilities and transportation, so that additional income from work is only needed for higher standards of living, but you don’t have to worry about being homeless or hungry if you don’t or can’t work? Very expensive and difficult to implement, and not all economists believe it is viable. Saying that a tax on Hedge Fund profits would finance it may be difficult to stand behind. But it’s the kind of thing that people could get behind and think that you’re finally thinking about them, isn’t it?

Was it a program to put people to work to rebuild America’s infrastructure? Very difficult to explain how those projects would be prioritized and funded or how corruption could be avoided. But everybody in every town drives past something every day that they know needs resurfacing or repainting, right?

Was it a program to build renewable energy research and development facilities in places hardest hit by the death of the coal industry? Not very practical to convince the scientific community that West Virginia is where they’ll need to recruit from. But it shows how you could offer something that puts money back into the pockets of those abandoned communities, doesn’t it?

Some or all of these may well have been part of Clinton’s plans or platform, but the campaign made sure that if they were, they remained a closely guarded secret. The campaign did a bad job by not using the hundreds of millions they spent to cement visionary ideas clearly in the minds of the public. The campaign policy wonks who dismissed these types of ideas as impractical won the day and set the campaign’s strategy. “Better to stick with a long list of bunt-singles that stand up to scrutiny rather than swinging and missing at home runs”, seemed to be the campaign’s strategy. How did that work out?

The strategy failed, and failed miserably. There’s no point blaming the people who didn’t come out to vote, you have to look at why the campaign failed to motivate those people to come out to vote. And you have to learn those lessons and start applying them if you want to have any chance of capitalizing on the mid-term elections in two years’ time.

Look, we all know that the right approach to an interview for a job is to say whatever you think needs to be said to get your foot in the door. Just do what it takes to get the opportunity to show that you deserve the job and are good at it. It’s time for campaigns and the whole liberal left movement to paint a vision that will get people excited and see that there is an alternative that’s more compelling than “well, it’s not as bad as what the other guy would do”. And it won’t be the end of the world if you can’t deliver all of that vision at once when the practicalities of budgets and doing the job responsibly have to be respected. But you still should be able to make incremental progress towards that vision and keep people on board. To do that, you have to make sure they understand where the top of the mountain is and know what they’ll find once they keep fighting their way up the difficult lower slopes to the summit.

Progress begins by looking inwards and saying ‘what can I do differently?’, not by pointing fingers and blaming others for not doing what you think they should have done. Let’s grow the tent. Let’s overwhelm the bad with a tsunami of good rather than thinking the bad will somehow see the light. The only way to get bullies to stand down and walk away is when they see the numbers are against them. Let’s grow the numbers by understanding what we have to do to get those who have been left behind to feel like they are being listened to, and that what is on offer is something that resonates and makes sense to them.
I believe that the vast majority of people are good and just want what everybody wants – to provide for the safety and security of themselves and their families. And to be happy. Many are not happy because the economic and political system has abandoned them. They are right. They may not know how it has abandoned them or what is needed to make things better. But we can’t deny how they feel, as their feelings are valid. And we can’t make them get behind things that they don’t want to get behind. We won’t break down their fears unless we engage, explain and support.
I don’t know what the answers are, but I do believe you get the government you deserve. It’s time to get out and connect with people who don’t see the world in the same way, and understand why that is. Face to face. Time to figure out ways to break down fears, define shared goals and show how we are dependent on each other to achieve them.

In professional road cycling, there is an event called the ‘team time trial’. A team of nine riders sets out on a course, usually about 30 miles long, and tries to cover the course as quickly as possible. To do this effectively, they take short turns at the front fighting the air resistance as their teammates shelter in their wake. The interesting part at the end is that their time is set not by the first person who crosses the line, but the fifth. There’s no benefit in one or two really strong riders racing off into the distance leaving the others behind. They have to figure out the best way to use their strength to get the weaker members of the team over the line with them as best they can. Leaders concentrate on the weakest four members of the team and use their additional resources to help them. Let’s start figuring out ways to get that fifth person over the line, and have everybody busting a gut because we all know where the finish line lies, what we need to do to get everybody there in one piece together, and the euphoria we will feel when we look at each other at the end and say “we did it!”